Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 12, 2025

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Kougianos

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
1:25-cv-06272
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

CitiMortgage v. Kougianos: Judge Rochon remanded the foreclosure case to state court because removal was untimely, incomplete, and lacked federal-question jurisdiction.

Who this affects

CitiMortgage, Inc. and Defendants Dorothy Gizaris and Konstantin Kougianos; the foreclosure case returns to New York Supreme Court, Bronx County.

What happened

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Kougianos began in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, and was removed to federal court on July 30, 2025. The case appears to involve a mortgage foreclosure, and Defendants Dorothy Gizaris and Konstantin Kougianos represented themselves.

The federal court found that the removal filings did not include all required state-court papers and that the case had been filed in April 2018, far outside the legal deadline for removal. The court also rejected Defendants’ argument that alleged constitutional, civil-rights, and due-process issues created federal jurisdiction.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered the case sent back to New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the federal case. The court based the remand both on the defective and untimely removal and on the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Kougianos · No. 1:25-cv-06272
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Aug. 12, 2025

Background

CitiMortgage, Inc. brought an action that appears to be a mortgage foreclosure case in the Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County. Defendants Dorothy Gizaris and Konstantin Kougianos removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 30, 2025. The defendants did not attach all process, pleadings, and orders served in the state-court action. They were proceeding without lawyers, so the court interpreted their removal notices to present the strongest arguments reasonably suggested by them.

Reasons for Remand

The court identified two procedural defects under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. First, the notice of removal and amended notice did not include copies of all required state-court papers. Second, the state-court docket showed that the case had begun in April 2018, well beyond the statutory period for removal. The court stated that these defects alone supported sending the case back to state court.

The court separately addressed subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court’s legal authority to hear the case. Defendants argued that the foreclosure action involved substantial federal-law questions, constitutional violations, and due-process issues. The court held that allegations that a state-court foreclosure action violated constitutional or other federal civil rights do not create federal-question jurisdiction over the removed foreclosure case.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered the Clerk of Court to remand the case to the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), and to close the federal case. The opinion states that the court could order the remand without waiting for a further request or notice. The ruling was based on both the defective and untimely removal and the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.